IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY

Duane G. Davis Sr. 7904 Jody Knoll Drive Windsor Mill, MD 21249 (443) 831-1188 Plaintiff v. Case No. Jury Trial Requested Jaquish Nure Davis 4441 Wrenwood Avenue Baltimore, MD 21218 and James Hammonds 1517 Applecroft Lane Cockeysville, MD 21239 Defendants

. . . . . . . . . -oOo- . . . . . . . . . .

Complaint for Fraud, Unlawful Conversion, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and Declaratory Relief

Introduction 1. Plaintiff in proper person, hereby respectfully submits the following, which led to the theft of Plaintiffs property, as well as his identity. Jurisdiction & Venue 2. Plaintiff is a resident of Baltimore County, MD. The above named Defendants also reside in Baltimore County therefore, this venue is the proper forum for adjudicating this matter. 3. At all relevant times, Plaintiff has been and is an individual residing in Maryland.

4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant times Defendant Jaquish Nure Davis has been and is an individual residing in Baltimore, Maryland. 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant times Defendant James Hammonds has been and is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maryland, with its principal place of business in Cockeysville, Maryland Statement of Claim Count 1 (Fraudulent Conversion) 6. On January 5, 2008, Defendant Jaquish Nure Davis did forge checks that were written to Plaintiff without permission and against Plaintiffs wishes.

7. Plaintiff was incarcerated at all times relevant herein and during that time Defendant Davis was in charge of operating Plaintiffs business and fraudulently filed documents with the State of Maryland to operate the business in his name with a check belonging to Plaintiff. 8. Defendant Davis furthered this fraud by filing with Baltimore County documents to obtain a local license to operate this business, as well. Defendant Davis also obtained a fraudulent lease from Co-Defendant Hammonds to operate the business. 9. Defendant Hammonds entered into this fraudulent lease agreement with Defendant Davis, despite already having a valid lease with Plaintiff on the same property. Count II (Breach of Fiduciary Duty) 10. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1-9 of this complaint.

11. Defendant Davis entered into an agreement with Plaintiff Davis to be his Power of Attorney. 12. Defendant Davis exceeded his discretion by entering into an agreement with Defendant Hammonds despite his duties being expressly outlined in the Power of Attorney Agreement with Plaintiff Davis.

13. Plaintiffs business and reputation has been damaged by the Defendant's actions. 14. Defendant's conduct was malicious, fraudulent, oppressive and/or recklessly committed, with wanton disregard of Plaintiffs' rights.

Count III (Breach of Contract) 15. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1-12 of this complaint.

16. The agreements and representations made by the parties formed a valid contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant. 17. Defendants conduct was malicious, fraudulent, oppressive and/or recklessly committed, with wanton disregard of Plaintiffs' rights. Count IV (Unjust Enrichment) 18. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1-15 of this complaint.

19. Defendants have knowingly benefited at Plaintiffs' expense. 20. Allowance of Defendants to retain the benefit would be unjust under the circumstances. 21. Defendant's conduct was malicious, fraudulent, oppressive and/or recklessly committed, with wanton disregard of Plaintiffs' rights. 22. WHEREFORE, Because Plaintiff was incarcerated at the times relevant in this complaint, and therefore was in fact a vulnerable adult requests that this court permits a jury trial on the matter. 23. Public confidence in the judicial system rests largely upon courts ability to advanceand to be seen as advancingfairness, justice, and equal treatment before the law. 24. In order to achieve these goals, the courts must afford all individuals, including those with disabilities, the right and opportunity to participate fully in the justice system.

25. To be fair, and to be perceived as fair, the judicial system must be accessible to individuals with disabilities with business before the courts.

26. That all individuals should enjoy equal access to the courts is a basic tenet of our democratic society. It is enshrined in our Constitution and recognized by this Court. See, e.g., Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819 n.15 (1975) (holding that the Due Process Clause guarantees an accused the right to be present at all stages of trial); Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 379 (1971) (except in extraordinary circumstances, all civil litigants must be afforded a meaningful opportunity to be heard); Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 207 U.S. 142, 148 (1907). Justice Stevens thus stated: 27. Freedom of access to the courts is a cherished value in our democratic society. . . . The

courts provide the mechanism for the peaceful resolution of disputes that might otherwise give rise to attempts at self-help. 28. There is, and should be, the strongest presumption of open access to all levels of the judicial system. . . . This Court, above all, should uphold the principle of open access. Talamini v. Allstate Ins. Co., 470 U.S. 1067, 1070-1071 (1985) (Stevens, J., concurring) (footnotes omitted) (emphasis added).

29. Unreasonable exclusion of individuals from the proceedings and activities of courts undermines the legitimacy of the courts and decreases public trust in the judicial system as a whole. See, e.g., Speech by Hon. Sandra Day OConnor to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference (Aug. 6, 1992), in The Effects of Gender in the Federal Courts: The Final Report of the Ninth Circuit Gender Bias Task Force, 67 S. Cal. L. Rev. 745, 760 (1994) (When people perceive gender bias in a legal system, whether they suffer from it or not, they lose respect for that system, as well as for the law.); Bothwell v. Republic Tobacco Co., 912 F. Supp. 1221, 1230 (D. Neb. 1995) ([T]he reduction of governmental resources to provide legal services to the poor is, for them, a removal of the civil justice systems accessibility (and thus, its legitimacy).).

30. The lack of equal and effective access to the judicial system for persons with disabilities harms not only those persons, but also the courts, which are deprived of the benefits of these individuals participation and contributions.

31. The arbitrary exclusion of any minority or traditionally disadvantaged group, including individuals with disabilities, does as much harm to the judicial system as to the individuals who are excluded. In Justice Marshalls words, [t]he effect of excluding minorities goes beyond the individual defendant, for such exclusion produces injury to the jury system, to the law as an institution, to the community at large, and to the democratic ideal reflected in the processes of our courts. McCray v. New York, 461 U.S. 961, 968 (1983) (dissenting from denial of certiorari) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 87 (1986); Ballard, 329 U.S. at 195. 32. Common sense, as well as historical experience, strongly suggests that participation by a diverse group of individuals is beneficial to the administration of justice. See, e.g., Hon. Harry T. Edwards, Race and the Judiciary, 20 Yale L. & Poly Rev. 325, 329 (2002) ([R]acial diversity on the bench can enhance judicial decision making by broadening the variety of voices and perspectives in the deliberative process.); cf. Hon. Sandra Day OConnor, Thurgood Marshall: The Influence of a Raconteur, 44 Stan. L. Rev. 1217, 1217 (1992) (Justice Marshall imparted not only his legal acumen but also his life experiences, constantly pushing and prodding [his colleagues] to respond not only to the persuasiveness of legal argument but also to the power of moral truth.). 33. To exclude individuals with disabilities from the courtroom is thus not only to deny individual litigants their right but also to deprive the bench or jury of viewpoints or ideas that may be unique to individuals who have experienced life with a disability or disabilities. 34. Persons with disabilities historically have faced and continue to face exclusion from States judicial programs, services, and activities. 35. Before Enactment Of The ADA, States Denied Persons With Disabilities Access To Judicial Programs, Services, And Activities. 36. Title II of the ADA was enacted against the background of a history and pattern of discrimination by the States against the disabled in which [t]he courthouse door was literally still closed to Americans with disabilities. Staff of the House Comm. on Educ. and Labor, 101st Congress, 2d Sess., Legis. Hist. of Pub. L. No. 101-336: The Americans With Disabilities Act, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 936 (Comm. Print 1990) (Sen. Harkin).

37. The legislative record of the ADA contains numerous references to state failure to make courts and courthouses accessible to individuals with disabilities. 38. In one notable instance, a witness at a congressional hearing testified that she went to the courtroom one day and . . . could not get into the building because there were about 500 steps to get in there. Id. at 1070-1071 (Emeka Nwojke). 39. And as Justice Breyer noted in his dissent in Board of Trustees v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 377-382 (2001), the legislative record of the ADA sets forth numerous other instances of States failures to make courthouses accessibleincluding failures to provide interpreter services for people who are deaf, to accord adult victims of abuse with developmental disabilities their equal right to testify in court, to provide amplified sound systems in courtrooms, to install access ramps and curb cuts in courthouse areas, and to enable an individual using a wheelchair to obtain a marriage license when the courthouse was not wheelchair accessible. 40. This evidence in the legislative record is confirmed by reports documenting States failures to make courthouses accessible. 41. A 1989 survey conducted by the Attorney Generals Commission on Disability for the State of California found that [m]any court rooms, jail visiting rooms and jails have architectural barriers that make them inaccessible to people who use wheelchairs. 42. In Massachusetts in 1990, 60% of the States 97 courthouses were found to lack ramps or accessible toilets. 43. A comprehensive report issued by the United States Commission on Civil Rights in 1983 describes the types of discrimination that people with disabilities have encountered nationwide, including the per se [d]isqualification of many handicapped persons from jury service and the [a]bsence of accommodations to permit handicapped persons to serve as jurors. 44. Access To Judicial Programs, Services, And Activities Remains Inadequate Or Nonexistent For Many Individuals With Disabilities. 45. Since 1990, as localities have begun to comply with Title II of the ADA, courthouse and courtroom access has improved, but lack of access to courthouses and courtrooms remains a serious problem for individuals with disabilities in many communities.
6

46. Virtually every quarterly status report issued since 1994 by the U.S. Department of Justice regarding ADA enforcement identifies numerous cases and settlements involving States failures to provide adequate access to judicial services for persons with disabilities. 47. A 1997 survey by the Access for Persons with Disabilities Subcommittee of the California Judicial Councils Access and Fairness Advisory Committee listed an array of failures in accommodations for individuals with disabilities in the California state court system. In seven public hearings conducted by Subcommittee on Access for Persons with Disabilities of the Judicial Council Access and Fairness Advisory Committee, 59% of the 148 speakers testified to problems with physical access to California courts. 48. In a report on the issue of access to courts and courthouses in the State of Washington, a subcommittee of the Governors Committee on Disability Issues and Employment noted that approximately 20 courts (nearly 20% of those responding to its questionnaire) identified access problems under the ADA and other failures to comply with the ADA. 49. A 1996 survey of Texas state courts conducted by the Texas Civil Rights Project found the accessibility of courtrooms for jurors, litigants, members of the public, and attorneys with disabilities [to be] abysmal and unjustifiable. 50. The New York State Commission on Quality of Care for the Mentally Disabled found that only 8% of all courtrooms were fully accessible, more than 80% of the state courts had no assistive listening systems or TDDs available, and 65% of the courts did not provide accessible parking spaces 51. Since April 2002, at least seven individuals who are deaf have filed suit against the Minnesota state court system for its failure to provide interpreter services, or for providing unqualified interpreters, for the individuals court appearances. 52. One of the plaintiffs alleged that he went to the courthouse seven times to resolve a traffic ticket dispute, and each time the court failed to provide an interpreter or provided one who did not know how to sign legal terms and concepts.

53. All seven cases arose after the Minnesota court system purportedly had [taken] steps in 2002 to resolve its difficulties with providing sign language interpreter services in the period from November 2001 to May 2002. 54. As these examples clearly illustrate, thirteen years after passage of the ADA, many court systems remain seriously in default on even their most basic obligations under the law. 55. The ADA therefore remains essential to efforts to ensure that States and localities do not deprive persons with disabilities of access to the justice system. 56. Title II of the ADA is essential to ensuring that individuals with disabilities have equal and effective access to the judicial system. 57. The Court has found a right of access inherent in numerous constitutional provisions, including the Due Process Clauses, the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, and the First Amendment. 58. Moreover, the Court has made clear that this right of access is a right of equal access. See Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 16 (1956) (plurality opinion). 59. Persons with disabilities are entitled to the benefit of this right of access no less than any other persons. 60. Title II of the ADA is a constitutionally appropriate implementation of that constitutional guarantee. 61. The Right Of Equal And Effective Access To The Courts Is A Core Aspect Of Constitutional Guarantees And Is Essential To Ensuring The Proper Administration Of Justice. 62. This Court has articulated at least four distinct ways in which the Constitution protects a right of access to the courts. 63. First, under the First Amendment, the public has the right to attend and observe judicial proceedings. See Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) (opinion of Burger, C.J.).

64. Openness to all the public, which this Court has called one of the essential qualities of a court of justice, id. at 567 (citation omitted), ensures that the judicial system is perceived to be fair and deserving of public confidence. 65. [T]he means used to achieve justice must have the support derived from public acceptance of both the process and its results. Id. at 571. 66. Second, the Due Process Clause secures the right to initiate proceedings in court to seek judicial relief from unlawful treatment at the hands of the government. 67. This issue has arisen most frequently in the context of prisoner access to the courts, but the Court has recognized that the right of prisoner access is simply one part of a more general right of access to the courts, . . . [which] is founded in the Due Process Clause and assures that no person will be denied the opportunity to present to the judiciary allegations concerning violations of fundamental constitutional rights. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 579 (1974); see also Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821-822 (1977). 68. Third, the Due Process Clause prevents the States from obstructing any individuals [r]esort to the judicial process when that process is central to interests of basic importance in our society. Boddie, 401 U.S. at 376. 69. In Boddie, the Court invalidated a requirement that litigants pay filing fees and costs, when that requirement effectively prevented indigent persons from bringing an action for divorce. See id. at 374. In finding that access to the courts was a central aspect of due process, the Court explained the central role of the courts in securing individuals rights and duties: 70. Perhaps no characteristic of an organized and cohesive society is more fundamental than its erection of a system of rules defining the various rights and duties of its members, enabling them to govern their affairs and definitively settle their differences in an orderly, predictable manner. . . . It is to the courts, or other quasi-judicial official bodies, that we ultimately look for the implementation of a regularized, orderly process of dispute settlement.Id. at 374-375. 71. Finally, when important interests are at stake in judicial proceedings, the Due Process Clause requires more than a theoretical right of access to the courts; it requires meaningful access.

72. [P]ersons forced to settle their claims of right and duty through the judicial process must be given a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Boddie, 401 U.S. at 377. 73. To ensure meaningful access, particularly when an individual faces the prospect of coercive State deprivation through the judicial process of life, liberty, or property, due process often requires the State to give a litigant affirmative assistance so that he may participate in the proceedings if he effectively would be unable to participate otherwise. See M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 125 (1996); id. at 128-129 (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment). 74. Even when due process does not obligate the State to establish an avenue of judicial redress (such as an appeal), once the State does so, these avenues must be kept free of unreasoned distinctions that can only impede open and equal access to the courts. Rinaldi v. Yeager, 384 U.S. 305, 310 (1966). 75. Thus, the State may not insist on court fees and costs when to do so would prevent an indigent person from defending against a devastatingly adverse action in court, such as a possible deprivation of parental rights or loss of liberty. See M.L.B., 519 U.S. at 125; Burns v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 252 (1959); Griffin, 351 U.S. 12. 76. Similarly, when an indigent man is confronted with a paternity action and cannot pay for blood tests that would dispel a presumption that he is the father, due process requires the State to shoulder the cost of the tests. See Little v. Streater, 452 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1972). 77. And it has long been understood that, as a matter of due process, the State must provide assistance, such as an interpreter, to one who could not otherwise understand the proceedings in his criminal trial. See United States ex rel. Negron v. New York, 434 F.2d 386, 389-390 (2d Cir. 1970); People v. Aguilar, 677 P.2d 1198, 1203-1204 (Cal. 1984). 78. The principle that the State must provide equal access to the courts is equally applicable to persons with disabilities. 79. A person with a disability who faces the loss of his freedom, children, or property in a judicial proceeding similarly must have meaningful access to the courts. 80. He cannot be said to enjoy equal and effective access to the courts unless he can actually attend, follow, and participate in the proceeding.
10

81. Meaningful, not merely theoretical, access to the courts is required by the Constitution. If someone who uses a wheelchair cannot even enter the courtroom where his liberty is at stake, he has no more access to justice than does the indigent person who cannot pursue an appeal because he lacks the funds for the filing fee. 82. Because Fundamental Rights Are At Stake When Access To The Judicial System Is Denied, More Than A Rational Basis Is Necessary To Justify Exclusion. 83. In Board of Trustees v. Garrett, where the Court held that States may not be made subject to private suits for money damages under Title I of the ADA, the Court emphasized that that case involved only claims of discrimination in employment of persons with disabilities. 531 U.S. 356 (2001). 84. The employment context was crucial in Garrett because employment decisions by governmental entities ordinarily do not implicate any kind of heightened scrutiny. 85. Had the plaintiffs in Garrett sought to pursue employment discrimination claims against Alabama state entities under the Equal Protection Clause, they would have faced the hurdle that States are not required by the Fourteenth Amendment to make special accommodations for the disabled, so long as their actions toward such individuals are rational. Id. at 367. 86. Title II of the ADA is quite different, however, because it often implicates constitutionally protected rightse.g., the right to vote, the right to marry, the right to raise ones children, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and, as in this case, the right of access to the courtsthat are entitled to greater protection than the rational basis test provides. 87. First, as noted above, the First Amendment right to attend judicial proceedings is a protected right for all members of the public that may not be restricted absent an overriding consideration. Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 564; Globe Newspaper v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982). 88. Although there may be practical limitations, such as space and expense, that might limit the number of attendees a court can accommodate, see Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 581 n.18, the Court never has suggested that mere administrative inconvenience or even budgetary

11

considerations would be sufficient to deny a member of the public the right to enter a courthouse and attend a proceeding there. 89. Second, the Courts numerous other right-of-access cases discussed above are solidly grounded in the Due Process Clause (although they also may rely upon the Equal Protection Clause) and frequently rely upon the Courts balancing approach in decisions such as Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). 90. Notably, these due process decisions do not exhibit the deference to the State that is characteristic of rational basis decisions such as Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993). To the contrary, as the Court explained in M.L.B., when an individual faces the deprivation of a cherished right through the state machinery of justice, that individuals interest in securing equal and effective access to the courts often outweighs state concerns about inconvenience and cost. See 519 U.S. at 124-125; id. at 129 (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment); see also Little, 452 U.S. at 16-17 (relying on Mathews test to conclude that the State's monetary interest is hardly significant enough to overcome private interests as important as those here) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 91. Thus, a State may be required to offer financial assistance to one seeking to pursue judicial proceedings; at a minimum, the State may not deny access to those proceedings to one who is unable to pay the States customary court fees, id., even though the State has no general obligation to ensure that the burdens and benefits of government do not fall unequally based upon the relative wealth of its citizens, see San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 5154 (1973). 92. Third, due process may require the State to make accommodations or exceptions for particular individuals in order to safeguard their right of access to the courts, even if the States general rule would be rational and constitutionally valid as applied to most other individuals. 93. Thus, in Boddie, the Court held that the States requirement of payment of costs for a divorce action implicated the right to a meaningful opportunity to be heard within the limits of practicality, which must be protected against denial by particular laws that operate to jeopardize it for particular individuals. 401 U.S. at 379-380.

12

94. The Court made clear that even a generally valid approach or procedure may fail to satisfy due process because of the circumstances of a particular litigant if it operates to foreclose [that] particular partys opportunity to be heard. Id. 95. These decisions make clear that a rational basis such as administrative convenience or cost concerns will not justify the States failure to ensure within reason that persons with disabilities are able to enter courthouses, attend judicial proceedings, or participate fully in matters to which they are parties. 96. Under Any Level Of Scrutiny, The Denial Of Meaningful Access To The Courts For Individuals With Disabilities Who Are Capable, With Or Without Reasonable Accommodations, Should Be Impermissible Under The Fourteenth Amendment. 97. Although denying persons with disabilities meaningful access to the judicial system requires application of a more rigorous standard of review than a rational basis, this Court need not decide this case on that particular ground, for this Courts precedents also establish the principle that denying persons with disabilities meaningful access to the courts fails any standard of review and therefore is impermissible under the Fourteenth Amendment. 98. That the rational basis test cannot justify a States effectively excluding persons from the justice system altogether has been made clear in this Courts precedents involving access to the courts for indigent persons. 99. In those cases, this Court has held that a States refusal to open the courthouse door to persons who cannot pay an otherwise generally applicable filing fee is irrational and invidious and therefore violative of the Fourteenth Amendment. 100. For example, in Mayer v. Chicago, 404 U.S. 189 (1971), this Court invalidated an Illinois Supreme Court practice under which only indigent persons convicted of felony offenses, and not indigent persons convicted of nonfelony offenses, could obtain free transcripts of their criminal trials for their appeals. 101. Although the State argued that it had legitimate interests in saving money and in not burdening the court system with appeals in minor cases, this Court held that [t]he invidiousness of the discrimination that exists when criminal procedures are made available only to those who can pay

13

is not erased by any differences in the sentences that may be imposed. The States fiscal interest is, therefore, irrelevant. Id. at 197. 102. Similarly, in Burns v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 252 (1959), this Court invalidated an Ohio Supreme Court practice under which indigent persons had no opportunity to file a petition for discretionary leave to appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court without prepayment of filing fees (after having had review in an intermediate appellate court). 103. Stressing that the Ohio Supreme Court had effectively foreclosed access to the second phase of [criminal appeals] solely because of [individuals] indigency, this Court found no rational basis for assuming that indigents motions for leave to appeal will be less meritorious than those of other defendants. Id. at 257. 104. A central feature of these decisions is that there is no suggestion that either the Illinois or the Ohio Supreme Court was attempting to bar the door to indigent persons appeals because they were indigent. 105. That is, the practices did not result from a bare desire . . . to harm a politically unpopular group, or negative attitudes toward indigent people. Cf. Garrett, 531 U.S. at 381. Moreover, these practices of denying assistance to indigent persons were not intentional exclusions, but the result of a failure to take notice of the needs of particular litigants. 106. The Court found that these practices were irrational and invidious, however, because they effectively excluded indigent persons from the avenues of justice. 107. So too here, a State that effectively denies persons with disabilities access to its court system by failing to accommodate the unique needs of each individual engages in invidious and irrational practices in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 108. No rational basis can justify a States ignoring the fully foreseeable fact that persons who (for example) use wheelchairs or have hearing impairments or are blind frequently have business in our nations courts and courthouses and can neither enter the building nor understand the proceedings without reasonable accommodations.

14

109. Title II of the ADAs requirement of affirmative conduct on the part of states is essential to ensuring that individuals with disabilities obtain real, not merely theoretical, access to the judicial system. 110. Under the Equal Protection Clause, it is normally sufficient if a State does not take cognizance of the status of any of its individual citizens. 111. A violation of equal protection is ordinarily established only when the decision-maker selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part because of, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects upon an identifiable group. Personnel Admr v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 279 (1979). 112. Thus, the evenhanded application of a formally neutral law usually will satisfy equal protection principles. 113. But as this Courts access cases make clear, the requirement of equal treatment is not satisfied where the obvious result is the denial of an individuals due process rights. 114. Rather, a different analysis is required when the State attempts to deprive an individual of his liberty and that individual cannot meaningfully participate in judicial proceedings without reasonable accommodations where appropriate, such as the removal of architectural barriers, modification of rules and practices, or provision of auxiliary aids and services. 115. Just as a non-English-speaking individual is denied due process when proceedings against him are conducted in a language he cannot understand with no provision for making them intelligible to him, and just as an indigent individual is denied due process if he lacks the means to pursue an appeal from his criminal conviction with no provision for assistance, a person with a disability is denied due process if the State fails to provide him with any accommodation and thereby effectively denies him meaningful access to the courts. 116. As the Court explained in Boddie, [t]he States obligations under the Fourteenth Amendment are not simply generalized ones; rather, the State owes to each individual that process which, in light of the values of a free society, can be characterized as due. 401 U.S. at 380. 117. Thus, due process may require affirmative conduct on the part of the State to ensure that individuals with disabilities can participate meaningfully in judicial proceedings.
15

118. The Court has recognized this very point in its prior disability cases. For example, in a case involving Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, on which Title II of the ADA was modeled, this Court noted that a refusal to modify an existing program, even if neutrally framed, might become unreasonable and discriminatory. Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 300 (1985) (internal quotation marks omitted). 119. [A]n otherwise qualified handicapped individual must be provided with meaningful access . . . . The benefit itself, of course, cannot be denied in a way that effectively denies otherwise qualified handicapped individuals the meaningful access to which they are entitled; to ensure meaningful access, reasonable accommodations in the . . . program or benefit may have to be made. Id. at 301. 120. There are numerous situations in which individuals with disabilities may be deprived of meaningful access to the judicial system, and therefore denied due process, because of a States failure to act affirmatively to make reasonable accommodations. 121. As dramatically illustrated by the present case, a State cannot plausibly be said to afford an individual due process in judicial proceedings if that individual cannot even enter the courthouse where his liberty is at stake. 122. Similarly, sign language interpreters, Computer Aided Real-Time Transcription services (for persons who are deaf and do not understand sign language), induction loop systems in courtrooms (for individuals who use hearing aids), Braille signage, and other accommodations may be necessary to ensure that individuals with disabilities can participate meaningfully in judicial proceedings. 123. In such circumstances, it is no answer for the State to excuse its failure to provide lifts, sign language interpreters, Braille documents, and other accommodations by saying that it formally treats all individuals alike. 124. By providing in Title II of the ADA a legal remedy against such violations, Congress has acted appropriately to enforce the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment.

16

For the reasons set forth in this complaint, Plaintiff respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in his favor and against the defendants Jaquish Nure Davis and James Hammonds and award Plaintiff:

(a) Actual or statutory damages, trebled, for violations of the Uniform Commercial Code,
(b) Actual damages and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial for the malicious, fraudulent, oppressive and/or recklessly committed breach of the contract.

(c) Damages sufficient to alleviate any unjust enrichment of Defendants. (d) Reasonable attorney fees and costs, and (e) Such other relief the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully Submitted,

Duane G. Davis 7904 Jody Knoll Drive Windsor Mill, MD 21249 (443) 831-1188

Affidavit I, Duane G. Davis, state that I have read the Verified Complaint for Fraud, Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practices, Breach of Contract and Unjust Enrichment, and that the same is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

Duane G. Davis 7904 Jody Knoll Drive Windsor Mill, MD 21249 (443) 831-1188

17

Certificate of service

I, Duane G. Davis, Plaintiff in proper person in the above captioned matter do hereby solemnly affirm that the contents of the enclosed Complaint has been forwarded to the defendants by US mail, first class, postage prepaid to: Jaquish Nure Davis 4441 Wrenwood Avenue Baltimore, MD 21218 James Hammonds 1517 Applecroft Lane Cockeysville, MD 21239

Respectfully,

Duane G. Davis 7904 Jody Knoll Drive Windsor Mill, MD 21249 (443) 831-1188

18